Albert Barnes Commentary Hebrews 9:19

"For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses unto all the people according to the law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people," — Hebrews 9:19 (ASV)

For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people. This refers to when he had recited all the law and delivered all the commandments entrusted to him (Exodus 24:8).

He took the blood of calves and of goats. This passage has caused great perplexity for commentators because Moses, in his account of the transactions connected with the ratification of the covenant with the people (Exodus 24:3), mentions only some of the circumstances referred to here. He says nothing of the blood of calves and goats, nothing of water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and nothing of sprinkling the book, the tabernacle, or the vessels of the ministry. Therefore, it has become a question from where Paul obtained knowledge of these circumstances. Since the account is not in the Old Testament, it must have been either by tradition or by direct inspiration. The latter supposition is hardly probable, for the following reasons:

1. The information here can hardly be regarded as important enough to have required an original revelation, as the illustration would have had sufficient force to sustain his conclusion if only the literal account in Exodus (namely, that Moses sprinkled the people) had been given.
2. Such an original act of inspiration here would not have been consistent with the apostle's objective. In that argument, it was essential for him to state only the facts about the ancient dispensation that were admitted by the Hebrews themselves. Any statement of his own about things they did not concede to be true, or which was not well understood as a custom, might have been questioned and would have significantly invalidated the entire argument. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the facts referred to here had been preserved by tradition. In regard to this, and the authority due to such a tradition, we may remark on the following points:
   1. It was well known that the Jews had many traditions which they carefully preserved.
   2. There is no improbability in the supposition that many events in their history would be preserved in this manner, since in the small compass of a volume like the Old Testament it cannot be presumed that all the events of their nation were recorded.
   3. Although they had many traditions of a trivial nature, and many that were false , they doubtless also had many that were true.
   4. In referring to those traditions, there is no impropriety in supposing that Paul may have been guided by the Spirit of inspiration in selecting only those that were true.
   5. Nothing is more probable than what is stated here. If Moses sprinkled the people (Exodus 24:8), if he then read the book of the law (Exodus 24:7), and if this was regarded as a solemn act of ratifying a covenant with God, nothing would be more natural than for him to sprinkle the book of the covenant, and even the tabernacle and its various sacred utensils.

We are also to remember that it was common among the Hebrews to sprinkle blood for the purpose of consecrating or as an emblem of purifying. For example, Aaron and his sons and their garments were sprinkled with blood when they were consecrated to the office of priests (Exodus 29:19–21). The blood of sacrifices was sprinkled on the altar (Leviticus 1:5, 11; Leviticus 3:2, 13), and blood was sprinkled before the veil of the sanctuary (Leviticus 4:16–17; Leviticus 7:14).

Similarly, Josephus speaks of the garments of Aaron and his sons being sprinkled with "the blood of the slain beasts, and with spring water." He says, "Having consecrated them and their garments for seven days together, he did the same to the tabernacle, and the vessels belonging to it, both with oil and with the blood of bulls and of rams" (Antiquities, Book 3, Chapter 8, Section 6).

These circumstances show the strong probability of the truth of what Paul affirms here, even though it is impossible to prove that Moses did not sprinkle the book and the tabernacle in the manner stated. The mere omission by Moses cannot demonstrate that it was not done. Regarding the phrase "the blood of calves and of goats," see the commentary on Hebrews 9:12.

With water. This aligns with Josephus's declaration that "spring water was used." In Leviticus 14:49-51, it is expressly mentioned that the blood of the bird killed to cleanse a house from the plague of leprosy was to be shed over running water, and that the blood and water mixture should be sprinkled on the walls. It has also been suggested (see Bloomfield) that water was necessary to prevent the blood from coagulating, or to make it possible to sprinkle.

And scarlet wool. The marginal reading is Purple. The word used here denotes crimson or deep scarlet. This color was obtained from a small insect, about the size of a pea, found adhering to the shoots of a species of oak in Spain and Western Asia. It was regarded as the most valuable color for dyeing and was very expensive. Why the wool used by Moses was this color is not known, unless it was because it was the most expensive of colors and thus consistent with everything employed in constructing the tabernacle and its utensils. Wool appears to have been used to absorb and retain the blood.

And hyssop. This refers to a bunch of hyssop intermingled with the wool, or connected with it in such a way as to form a convenient instrument for sprinkling . Hyssop is a low shrub, regarded as one of the smallest plants, and therefore put in contrast with the cedar of Lebanon. It grew out of rocks or walls (1 Kings 4:33) and was used for purification. The term seems to have included not only common hyssop but also lavender and other aromatic plants. Its fragrance, as well as its size, may have suggested its use in the sacred services of the tabernacle.

And sprinkled both the book. This circumstance is not mentioned by Moses, but, as shown above, it is not improbable. Some expositors, however, to avoid the difficulty in the passage, have taken this in connection with the word labwn—rendered "he took"—meaning, "taking the blood, and the book itself." However, the more natural and proper construction is that the book was sprinkled with the blood.

And all the people. Moses says, and sprinkled it on the people (Exodus 24:8). We are not to suppose that either Moses or Paul intends to say that the blood was actually sprinkled on each one of the three million people in the wilderness. The meaning, doubtless, is that the blood was sprinkled over the assembly, though in fact it might have fallen on only a few. Similarly, if a man standing on an elevated place, surrounded by a large assembly, were to sprinkle water over them from where he stood, he might be said to sprinkle it on the people, even though only a few might actually be touched by it. The act would be equally significant whether the emblem fell on few or many.